A couple of months ago I started this blog with a problem that had arisen at Countryside Humane Society in Racine, Wisconsin. Staff had given expired vaccines for six months to approximately 600 animals. I won't rehash those details. They're in my very first entry.
Shortly after the vaccine fiasco, the management of the humane society circled the wagons and denied any wrongdoing. One Racine alderman, Eric Marcus, has stayed determined to get to the bottom of this. There has also been ongoing coverage of the events in Racine Uncovered - a web-based news site.
Alderman Marcus has tried to get a copy of six years worth of Countryside's records and has been denied. Even though at least a portion of these records should fall under the Freedom of Information Act (more on this below). So, finally Marcus found someone who would come forward with allegations of abuse. The story aired on WISN news last night.
I am not a big fan of using one story to make a point - but in this case it may have finally achieved the desired outcome. Enough of a public outcry to get to the bottom of this mess. We'll see. Countryside is still not responding and has hired a lawyer to represent them.
Countryside Humane Society has now been removed from the membership list of AWARE (Alliance of Wisconsin Area Rehoming Efforts) a partnership of shelters and rescues in Wisconsin who promote the responsible rehoming of adopted animals.
My point - "Crawling into bed and pulling the covers over your head does not make the storm go away." In this case, it's getting worse by the day - because I'm sure there will be all sorts of anecdotal stories of mistreatment that may surface. Just look at the comments that are starting to pop up under the WISN news story. Soon Countryside will have lost the public's support and donations. The income from their animal control contracts is not enough to keep their doors open.
Countryside management needs for once and for all to come out in the open, show their records, apologize, roll a few heads, and get back on track in a new, responsible, transparent fashion that the taxpayers and donors expect and deserve.
If you are trying to get records from an animal shelter that provides animal control services (falls under the Freedom of Information Act) - here is a step-by step guide put out by the No Kill Advocacy Center.
http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/pdf/transparency.pdf
Also at the No Kill Conference last weekend in Washington, D.C. there was a session on "Forcing Transparency". Here are the live blogging notes from Christie Keith of the Pet Connection.
Showing posts with label humane society. Show all posts
Showing posts with label humane society. Show all posts
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
The Elderly - How We're Failing the People Who Need Their Pets the Most
Any of you that know me personally know that I'm a low maintenance type of person. Everything I own has to be wash n'wear. My hair, my clothes, my dogs. I've always had short haired terriers and every once in awhile after they've rolled in something stinky, I toss them in the laundry sink and suds them up. Other than nail trimming, that's the grooming regime.
So it came as a huge surprise when I fostered a puppy mill bichon frise last summer to learn how much I didn't know about dog grooming. It seemed like every time I turned around he was looking like a pitiful little dirtball. Our daily four mile hike in the woods required a half hour de-burring afterwards otherwise he spent the day looking sort of like a hedgehog. I got sticker shock when I found out the cost of professional grooming - more than several days worth of groceries for a lot of people.
These types of dogs (which for lack of a better term, I usually call small fluffies) are generally perfect for senior citizens. They are small, low shedding, pretty agreeable in temperament, and do not usually have the same high exercise requirements as the working terriers. They fall into the "highly adoptable" category in our shelter and rescue system. Especially if they have come from a home environment (not a puppy mill) and are well-socialized and house broken.
Now, I am speaking from a Wisconsin perspective. And I would be interested to know if this phenomenon is happening elsewhere around the country. When there are small fluffies with the above characteristics available in a brick and mortar shelter - they are usually adopted within a week, often within a day, and sometimes within an hour, of hitting the adoption floor. There may be several applications on one dog and there may be a lineup of people waiting to see that dog at opening time. They attract people to the shelter - kind of like a "door buster" special on Black Friday. So even though there may be only one small fluffy on the floor - the additional traffic generates other adoptions and retail sales in the shelter. Highly adoptables have no fear of being "euthanized" and most of the shelters wish there were a lot more of them.
So, back to my commentary from my last blog. Here's the scenario:
The small fluffies are owned by elderly folks in the city. The dog has a happy home and life, but then one day, maybe the owner needs a new prescription for their health or an extra trip to the doctor, or whatever. The dog is still well fed and healthy but the time between groomings often lapses into longer and longer spans. Pretty soon the dog is having that slightly neglected look. Plus it's hard with arthritic hands to brush coats and trim nails. The dog for whatever reason ends up at animal control. It is assumed to be abused and neglected. It is considered a "stray". Not a lost pet.
The elderly often:
1) have no computer or internet to check to see where the dog is
2) have no transportation
3) have poor English or poor hearing
4) do not have enough money to reclaim their dog (without sacrificing their rent, groceries, prescriptions, etc.)
And guess what - the dog comes off of stray hold and wham, bam, it's adopted to a nice, rich family in the suburbs.
I don't want to get into anecdotes here, for fear of identifying people, but I could fill a book with the stories that I've heard about how older people could not afford to reclaim their dog and were made to feel guilty and irresponsible. So they just ask that someone would give their beloved dog a good home.
I find it embarrassing and inconceivable that we as a society allow this to happen. Need I say more?
Successful shelters and animal control facilities of the future will have services for seniors - volunteers and staff that are specifically trained to help seniors of all ethnicities - whether it be with transportation, pet food and grooming "pantries", lost pet assistance, and safe keeping for hospital stays. Pet ownership has significant health and emotional benefits to seniors that has been well-documented in several studies. The goodwill that these services generate will more than make up for the lost revenue from the small fluffies.
So it came as a huge surprise when I fostered a puppy mill bichon frise last summer to learn how much I didn't know about dog grooming. It seemed like every time I turned around he was looking like a pitiful little dirtball. Our daily four mile hike in the woods required a half hour de-burring afterwards otherwise he spent the day looking sort of like a hedgehog. I got sticker shock when I found out the cost of professional grooming - more than several days worth of groceries for a lot of people.
These types of dogs (which for lack of a better term, I usually call small fluffies) are generally perfect for senior citizens. They are small, low shedding, pretty agreeable in temperament, and do not usually have the same high exercise requirements as the working terriers. They fall into the "highly adoptable" category in our shelter and rescue system. Especially if they have come from a home environment (not a puppy mill) and are well-socialized and house broken.
Now, I am speaking from a Wisconsin perspective. And I would be interested to know if this phenomenon is happening elsewhere around the country. When there are small fluffies with the above characteristics available in a brick and mortar shelter - they are usually adopted within a week, often within a day, and sometimes within an hour, of hitting the adoption floor. There may be several applications on one dog and there may be a lineup of people waiting to see that dog at opening time. They attract people to the shelter - kind of like a "door buster" special on Black Friday. So even though there may be only one small fluffy on the floor - the additional traffic generates other adoptions and retail sales in the shelter. Highly adoptables have no fear of being "euthanized" and most of the shelters wish there were a lot more of them.
So, back to my commentary from my last blog. Here's the scenario:
The small fluffies are owned by elderly folks in the city. The dog has a happy home and life, but then one day, maybe the owner needs a new prescription for their health or an extra trip to the doctor, or whatever. The dog is still well fed and healthy but the time between groomings often lapses into longer and longer spans. Pretty soon the dog is having that slightly neglected look. Plus it's hard with arthritic hands to brush coats and trim nails. The dog for whatever reason ends up at animal control. It is assumed to be abused and neglected. It is considered a "stray". Not a lost pet.
The elderly often:
1) have no computer or internet to check to see where the dog is
2) have no transportation
3) have poor English or poor hearing
4) do not have enough money to reclaim their dog (without sacrificing their rent, groceries, prescriptions, etc.)
And guess what - the dog comes off of stray hold and wham, bam, it's adopted to a nice, rich family in the suburbs.
I don't want to get into anecdotes here, for fear of identifying people, but I could fill a book with the stories that I've heard about how older people could not afford to reclaim their dog and were made to feel guilty and irresponsible. So they just ask that someone would give their beloved dog a good home.
I find it embarrassing and inconceivable that we as a society allow this to happen. Need I say more?
Successful shelters and animal control facilities of the future will have services for seniors - volunteers and staff that are specifically trained to help seniors of all ethnicities - whether it be with transportation, pet food and grooming "pantries", lost pet assistance, and safe keeping for hospital stays. Pet ownership has significant health and emotional benefits to seniors that has been well-documented in several studies. The goodwill that these services generate will more than make up for the lost revenue from the small fluffies.
Friday, July 16, 2010
We Take From the Poor - And Give to the Rich (What's Wrong With This Picture?)
I just finished reading an article in the latest edition of Best Friends magazine (link not yet available) regarding the City of Calgary's Animal Services division. This is only the latest in a string of accolades for the department and for it's director, Bill Bruce. I have followed the stories closely, both out of a sense of national pride ( I am also Albertan) and an immense admiration for the success that the program has had. I have listened to Bill Bruce speak at national conferences and I enjoy his no-nonsense style.
I totally agree with Ledy VanKavage, senior legislative analyst for Best Friends Animal Society in a recent blog - Bill Bruce and his department would be good candidates for cloning.
What I want to highlight is the numbers from this latest article - nothing short of amazing. In 2009, Calgary picked up 4291 dogs and 3711 of them were returned to their people. Of those dogs, 1163 were driven directly home and never saw the inside of the shelter. (That means - it never cost the taxpayer money in vaccinations, drugs for upper respiratory infections, spay/neuter costs if adoptable, euthanasia drugs, cremation costs, body disposal costs; let alone the labor costs for caring for the animal during the stray hold period or while awaiting adoption).
I would like to clear up any confusion for those of you newer to animal welfare to a couple of definitions and the problems with them.
Animal control is a service provided by the local government that was originally designed to protect the public from dangerous dogs and rabies outbreaks from stray animals. It is paid for with tax dollars and the level of service varies upon the municipality or county where you live. The term animal control is outdated and implies that the animals are "out of control". Some newer more progressive agencies are changing their name to Animal Services or other variations.
Animal shelters may or may not hold the animal control contracts for the county or municipality that they serve. So the funding they receive may be partially taxpayer, all taxpayer, or all donations. I think the name "animal shelter" can also be deceiving because it implies that the animals are "safe" once they have arrived there. Of course, we know that nothing is further from the truth. But, orginally, animal shelters were designed to protect animals from irresponsible people.
So, in a nutshell, animal control protects people from animals. Animal shelters protect animals from people. Two very different concepts. Watch the 20 minute video Strayed - How Animal Welfare Lost It's Way for a more indepth look at this.
To make ends meet a lot of animal shelters need to hold animal control contracts. Animal control contracts provide a stable source of income, whereas income from donations can fluctuate widely depending on a number of factors.
Humane societies and animal shelters are interchangeable terms. There is no national governing body for any of the above although there are several national agencies that provide resources and guidance.
Okay - on to the new stuff:
We have focused for so long on adoption numbers in the past - that we have overlooked the number of animals brought in to a shelter as an opportunity to reduce shelter killing. By bringing down the "intake" numbers they can't be killed. You don't believe the strange looks I get from people when I talk about this. I guess they can't wrap their heads around it yet.
They think that every "stray" dog and cat out there needs to be "saved". But is bringing them into a shelter "saving" them? I see it as a sort of reverse Robin Hoodism. Let's snatch the pets away from the irresponsible poor people of the inner city and find them "better" homes with the rich people in the suburbs. Hmm. Arrogance at it's finest.
Works fine for the highly adoptable dogs - but not so fine for the majority of mid to large breed mixes. We can't expect every one to want to adopt a large mixed breed dog.
Why not return them to their owners?
Once an animal is at animal control - the dollars (reclaim fees) start to quickly add up. Some shelters charge a call out fee, every animal must be vaccinated and then there is daily boarding. It is not unusual for the costs to reclaim your dog to be well over $100 for a 24 hour stay at "the pound". Then of course, there is a strong likelihood that your pet will come down with an upper respiratory infection common in overcrowded municipal shelters.
Start to multiply this by a few days and pretty soon you could be looking at what would equal the car payment or the rent for a lower income family. Don't forget - not every one has a credit card or the money in the bank. They might need to wait until the next payday to come and get their dog. Pretty soon - it's become more than they can afford.
Here's a few more reasons for unclaimed dogs:
1) no transportation (and you can't take your dog on the bus)
2) no computer or access to the internet to see if the dog is there
3) work several jobs and are not able to get the dog during business hours
4) do not speak English and by the time they figure out where their dog is and how to get it back they can't afford to
5) have outstanding warrants and are concerned about coming to a government agency to reclaim their dog
6) are illegal immigrants and are concerned about coming to a government agency to reclaim their dog
What does it boil down to? The dog gets left at animal control. Taking up the space of a needier animal when it had a perfectly good home that it could have gone back to.
I'm not talking fighting dogs or mistreated dogs here. I'm talking about family-friendly mid to large breed dogs that have not been abused and are showing up by the hundreds in our shelters.
And the reality is: these were dog-loving owners. So at some point - they're going to go out and get another dog. And the cycle begins again.
What can be done to improve the system?
An aggressive licensing program that helps animal control officers immediately know where dogs belong. Calgary has a 94 percent licensing rating. This income is what funds the department. Many dogs are never brought to the shelter - they are immediately driven back home.
Animal control officers that love people as much as they love animals. They become a resource in the community and have an established "beat". They spend their days on the streets getting to know the residents and their pets. They show an interest in people and willingness to educate instead of the attitude of disgust and arrogance that is so prevalent in animal welfare.
Animal control officers that are comfortable in the communities they work in - that understand the cultures and speak the languages.
Return the pet, hand them a voucher for low cost spay/neuter and vaccinations, maybe even offer to arrange transportation to the clinic. Start to end the cycle instead of perpetuating it.
Will we still have to take some animals away for their own well-being? Of course. But if we could only return 20 or 30 percent more to owners - just think of the impact that would make.
Okay, I'm going to stop there today. And next will focus on how this same problem is affecting the elderly and their ability to keep their small dogs in our inner cities.
I totally agree with Ledy VanKavage, senior legislative analyst for Best Friends Animal Society in a recent blog - Bill Bruce and his department would be good candidates for cloning.
What I want to highlight is the numbers from this latest article - nothing short of amazing. In 2009, Calgary picked up 4291 dogs and 3711 of them were returned to their people. Of those dogs, 1163 were driven directly home and never saw the inside of the shelter. (That means - it never cost the taxpayer money in vaccinations, drugs for upper respiratory infections, spay/neuter costs if adoptable, euthanasia drugs, cremation costs, body disposal costs; let alone the labor costs for caring for the animal during the stray hold period or while awaiting adoption).
I would like to clear up any confusion for those of you newer to animal welfare to a couple of definitions and the problems with them.
Animal control is a service provided by the local government that was originally designed to protect the public from dangerous dogs and rabies outbreaks from stray animals. It is paid for with tax dollars and the level of service varies upon the municipality or county where you live. The term animal control is outdated and implies that the animals are "out of control". Some newer more progressive agencies are changing their name to Animal Services or other variations.
Animal shelters may or may not hold the animal control contracts for the county or municipality that they serve. So the funding they receive may be partially taxpayer, all taxpayer, or all donations. I think the name "animal shelter" can also be deceiving because it implies that the animals are "safe" once they have arrived there. Of course, we know that nothing is further from the truth. But, orginally, animal shelters were designed to protect animals from irresponsible people.
So, in a nutshell, animal control protects people from animals. Animal shelters protect animals from people. Two very different concepts. Watch the 20 minute video Strayed - How Animal Welfare Lost It's Way for a more indepth look at this.
To make ends meet a lot of animal shelters need to hold animal control contracts. Animal control contracts provide a stable source of income, whereas income from donations can fluctuate widely depending on a number of factors.
Humane societies and animal shelters are interchangeable terms. There is no national governing body for any of the above although there are several national agencies that provide resources and guidance.
Okay - on to the new stuff:
We have focused for so long on adoption numbers in the past - that we have overlooked the number of animals brought in to a shelter as an opportunity to reduce shelter killing. By bringing down the "intake" numbers they can't be killed. You don't believe the strange looks I get from people when I talk about this. I guess they can't wrap their heads around it yet.
They think that every "stray" dog and cat out there needs to be "saved". But is bringing them into a shelter "saving" them? I see it as a sort of reverse Robin Hoodism. Let's snatch the pets away from the irresponsible poor people of the inner city and find them "better" homes with the rich people in the suburbs. Hmm. Arrogance at it's finest.
Works fine for the highly adoptable dogs - but not so fine for the majority of mid to large breed mixes. We can't expect every one to want to adopt a large mixed breed dog.
Why not return them to their owners?
Once an animal is at animal control - the dollars (reclaim fees) start to quickly add up. Some shelters charge a call out fee, every animal must be vaccinated and then there is daily boarding. It is not unusual for the costs to reclaim your dog to be well over $100 for a 24 hour stay at "the pound". Then of course, there is a strong likelihood that your pet will come down with an upper respiratory infection common in overcrowded municipal shelters.
Start to multiply this by a few days and pretty soon you could be looking at what would equal the car payment or the rent for a lower income family. Don't forget - not every one has a credit card or the money in the bank. They might need to wait until the next payday to come and get their dog. Pretty soon - it's become more than they can afford.
Here's a few more reasons for unclaimed dogs:
1) no transportation (and you can't take your dog on the bus)
2) no computer or access to the internet to see if the dog is there
3) work several jobs and are not able to get the dog during business hours
4) do not speak English and by the time they figure out where their dog is and how to get it back they can't afford to
5) have outstanding warrants and are concerned about coming to a government agency to reclaim their dog
6) are illegal immigrants and are concerned about coming to a government agency to reclaim their dog
What does it boil down to? The dog gets left at animal control. Taking up the space of a needier animal when it had a perfectly good home that it could have gone back to.
I'm not talking fighting dogs or mistreated dogs here. I'm talking about family-friendly mid to large breed dogs that have not been abused and are showing up by the hundreds in our shelters.
And the reality is: these were dog-loving owners. So at some point - they're going to go out and get another dog. And the cycle begins again.
What can be done to improve the system?
An aggressive licensing program that helps animal control officers immediately know where dogs belong. Calgary has a 94 percent licensing rating. This income is what funds the department. Many dogs are never brought to the shelter - they are immediately driven back home.
Animal control officers that love people as much as they love animals. They become a resource in the community and have an established "beat". They spend their days on the streets getting to know the residents and their pets. They show an interest in people and willingness to educate instead of the attitude of disgust and arrogance that is so prevalent in animal welfare.
Animal control officers that are comfortable in the communities they work in - that understand the cultures and speak the languages.
Return the pet, hand them a voucher for low cost spay/neuter and vaccinations, maybe even offer to arrange transportation to the clinic. Start to end the cycle instead of perpetuating it.
Will we still have to take some animals away for their own well-being? Of course. But if we could only return 20 or 30 percent more to owners - just think of the impact that would make.
Okay, I'm going to stop there today. And next will focus on how this same problem is affecting the elderly and their ability to keep their small dogs in our inner cities.
Friday, July 9, 2010
Be Careful What You Wish For
This article out of San Francisco has come across my radar screen in several formats over the past few weeks.
It is a story regarding the proposed ban of all pets in pet stores except fish. Sounds great - for about thirty seconds. Don't get me wrong - I'm all for enforceable regulations that provide for the humane treatment of animals in pet stores and in the places where they are produced. And I don't see a need to sell kittens and puppies in pet stores. We need responsible breeders for that, plus there is still plenty in most of the shelters in this country.
But do we really want our children to grow up without the opportunity to have a small pet to care for? How will they learn compassion and responsibility? My sisters and I had guinea pigs when we were growing up. There are a lot of lessons to be learned (with parental oversight of course) from caring and coping with small pets.
It is a story regarding the proposed ban of all pets in pet stores except fish. Sounds great - for about thirty seconds. Don't get me wrong - I'm all for enforceable regulations that provide for the humane treatment of animals in pet stores and in the places where they are produced. And I don't see a need to sell kittens and puppies in pet stores. We need responsible breeders for that, plus there is still plenty in most of the shelters in this country.
But do we really want our children to grow up without the opportunity to have a small pet to care for? How will they learn compassion and responsibility? My sisters and I had guinea pigs when we were growing up. There are a lot of lessons to be learned (with parental oversight of course) from caring and coping with small pets.
A budding young starlet with her precious piggy,
Pumpkin enjoy a sunny outing - 1967.
Remember... for every action there is a reaction. And banning small pets now may mean there will be less homes for large pets in the next generation.
***
Remember... for every action there is a reaction. And banning small pets now may mean there will be less homes for large pets in the next generation.
***
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
A Different Side of the Starfish Story
I'm on vacation this week so I thought I'd re-post this blog from my old site since I've gained a lot of new followers recently. Thank you for joining me!
Most people in animal rescue have heard it a thousand times. The first time I ever heard it was at church. The pastor used it to exemplify how as Christians we should help each other - even if saving one soul at a time seemed like an overwhelming task. Animal rescuers say that is how they keep going - they save one animal at a time.
It's a beautiful story - I have two starfish necklaces and a starfish pin that I wear proudly. If you aren't familiar with it - here is the original version:
One day a man was walking along the beach when he noticed
a woman picking something up and gently throwing it into the ocean.
Approaching the woman, he asked, "What are you doing?"
The woman replied, "Throwing starfish back into the ocean.
The surf is up and the tide is going out. If I don't throw them back, they'll die."
"Ma'am," the man said, "don't you realize there are miles and miles of beach and hundreds of starfish?
You can't make a difference!"
After listening politely, the woman bent down, picked up another starfish,
and threw it back into the surf. Then, smiling at the man, she said..."
I made a difference for that one."
But I have also seen problems with the single-minded focus of the story. I envision the animal rescuer carefully cupping the starfish (a rescued dog or cat) in her hands. Focusing so intently as she carries it back to the water, she is oblivious to everything going on around her.
Thousands of people have come down to the beach - wanting to know how they can get involved, how they can help - but instead of looking up from her starfish and organizing the newcomers into teams and efficient distribution lines where they could save thousands of starfish - she can only focus on the one she carries. She says: "I'm too busy, I'm too overwhelmed - saving just this one - I don't have time to explain to you how you can help. I haven't had time to educate myself on the newest animal welfare practices and facts and figures." And so the newcomers stumble around blindly - some get discouraged and quit, some waste time re-inventing the wheel, most fall into the trap of carrying one starfish at a time back to the water.
Sound familiar? How many rescue groups and shelters do you know that don't have time to organize a volunteer program, a proper foster home network, an efficient website and social media program or an offsite adoption program? All of these things have proven track records of success for saving lives. How many shelters and rescues are out there that miss out on conferences, free webinars and seminars because they don't have the resources and the time? Yet how can they not make the time? How can they not find the funds? The knowledge gained by learning the cutting-edge methods will save lives, cut costs, and improve efficiency.
Please, look up from that one starfish once in awhile. See, read, absorb - because there are so many new wonderful life-saving strategies that are working around the nation. It is time to run up and down the beach and join forces. We are a No Kill Nation and we are closer than you have ever imagined.
Most people in animal rescue have heard it a thousand times. The first time I ever heard it was at church. The pastor used it to exemplify how as Christians we should help each other - even if saving one soul at a time seemed like an overwhelming task. Animal rescuers say that is how they keep going - they save one animal at a time.
It's a beautiful story - I have two starfish necklaces and a starfish pin that I wear proudly. If you aren't familiar with it - here is the original version:
One day a man was walking along the beach when he noticed
a woman picking something up and gently throwing it into the ocean.
Approaching the woman, he asked, "What are you doing?"
The woman replied, "Throwing starfish back into the ocean.
The surf is up and the tide is going out. If I don't throw them back, they'll die."
"Ma'am," the man said, "don't you realize there are miles and miles of beach and hundreds of starfish?
You can't make a difference!"
After listening politely, the woman bent down, picked up another starfish,
and threw it back into the surf. Then, smiling at the man, she said..."
I made a difference for that one."
But I have also seen problems with the single-minded focus of the story. I envision the animal rescuer carefully cupping the starfish (a rescued dog or cat) in her hands. Focusing so intently as she carries it back to the water, she is oblivious to everything going on around her.
Thousands of people have come down to the beach - wanting to know how they can get involved, how they can help - but instead of looking up from her starfish and organizing the newcomers into teams and efficient distribution lines where they could save thousands of starfish - she can only focus on the one she carries. She says: "I'm too busy, I'm too overwhelmed - saving just this one - I don't have time to explain to you how you can help. I haven't had time to educate myself on the newest animal welfare practices and facts and figures." And so the newcomers stumble around blindly - some get discouraged and quit, some waste time re-inventing the wheel, most fall into the trap of carrying one starfish at a time back to the water.
Sound familiar? How many rescue groups and shelters do you know that don't have time to organize a volunteer program, a proper foster home network, an efficient website and social media program or an offsite adoption program? All of these things have proven track records of success for saving lives. How many shelters and rescues are out there that miss out on conferences, free webinars and seminars because they don't have the resources and the time? Yet how can they not make the time? How can they not find the funds? The knowledge gained by learning the cutting-edge methods will save lives, cut costs, and improve efficiency.
Please, look up from that one starfish once in awhile. See, read, absorb - because there are so many new wonderful life-saving strategies that are working around the nation. It is time to run up and down the beach and join forces. We are a No Kill Nation and we are closer than you have ever imagined.
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Ringworm - The Fungus Amongst Us
Bear with me a moment - suppose this was the headline from the morning paper:
"Sixteen otherwise totally healthy third graders were euthanized yesterday by a local hospital because they showed signs of a minor fungus infection that could potentially spread to other students."
What would the reaction be? Do you think the public would be a little upset? I would hope so. Now, I know I shouldn't compare animals to people - but I just had to this one time. This scenario is getting played out, over and over again in our nation's shelters when even a whiff of a ringworm spore floats by. It's ringworm. IT'S A FUNGUS!
Like Athlete's Foot. Have you ever heard of anybody being "euthanized" for athlete's foot? It's ludicrous. And yet shelter directors are STILL insisting that it is the kiss of death. Oh but sorry, in an effort to sound clinical - most shelters will use the term "depopulate" instead of "euthanize" when they talk about killing animals with ringworm. They can say the word so quickly and with such authority - "depopulate" - that it takes a moment for the true horror of the reality to set in. Have you ever heard of a nursing home that "depopulates" it's facility when it has an infectious disease?
There is only one reason why ringworm is the kiss of death in shelters. Because the shelters have let it become so. We need to let go of the stigma. Let's shout it from the rooftops. It's Ringworm. "I Have Ringworm. You Have Ringworm. We All Have Ringworm." ITS A FUNGUS!! We eat them in gravy. They live in our bathtubs and on our lawns. THE WORLD IS NOT COMING TO AN END!!
Sorry, but I had to do that - because it makes me crazy when shelters kill otherwise totally healthy animals for ringworm. Is it a pain in the butt? Yes. Does it cost time and money to treat? Yes. Is it contagious to other animals and humans? Yes. But is it highly treatable? Of course. It's a FUNGUS.
Fungi are best treated with bleach, heat, sunlight and dry air. (Sounds like my mother's cleaning regiment). Cluttered shelters with poor airflow and damp corners are going to be harder to clean. Maybe it's time to ask for donations to solve those problems, if that is the case in your shelter. Maybe it's time to have better cleaning protocols and staff training to prevent a ringworm outbreak in the first place.
I have had horses for 25 years. I am no stranger to ringworm. Horses get ringworm. Cows get ringworm. I've had ringworm. But you treat it and you get on with your life. I have never, ever, ever heard of a horse being "euthanized" for ringworm.
The stigma attached to ringworm will only stop when the shelters stop it. They need to educate the public, talk about it in the media, rally their volunteers and foster homes to help when there is an outbreak and then sit back and take a deep breath. But hiding behind closed doors and whispering is perpetuating the problem and increasing the stigma.
We have some of the nation's leading researchers on ringworm right here in Wisconsin. We have dairy farmers who deal with ringworm day in and day out. Do you think they "depopulate" their farms? I think not. (One farming article I read said - "just put some athlete's foot cream on the lesions")
When I was in about 3rd grade - I remember an outbreak of head lice in my school. I came home with the letter from the school nurse, my Mom picked around at my scalp and sure enough - there were those little critters having a good ole' time. She marched off to the drugstore for the shampoo, lathered me up according to the directions and that was that. While some mothers were wringing their hands in despair, wondering how this could happen in our neighborhood, and what was the school going to do about it - the practical mothers had already moved on and I was back playing at the playground. And as far as I can tell, I have no emotional scars from the big HEAD LICE scare of 1969.
Here are some recent shelter veterinary notes on the prevention and treatment of ringworm.
http://www.sheltermedicine.com/portal/is_ringworm.shtml#top3ng
Dane County Humane Society, part of a Maddie's Fund project, has a ringworm treatment program highlighted on their website. So it can be done - and is being done, in Wisconsin.
The No Kill Advocacy Center has published a Lifesaving Matrix which clearly lists ringworm as a treatable condition.
So before you donate to a shelter - why don't you ask? "Do you treat for ringworm? Dogs? Cats? (Many shelters will treat dogs but not cats - since they make the argument that there are more available cats than dogs and that it is harder to treat a cat.) If you "euthanize" for ringworm, how are you implementing procedures NOW so that you don't have to in the future?" Ask the tough questions. It's your money and you have a right to know.
This blog was dedicated to an eight month old puppy who was killed for a minor ringworm infection at a local shelter. May he not have died in vain.
"Sixteen otherwise totally healthy third graders were euthanized yesterday by a local hospital because they showed signs of a minor fungus infection that could potentially spread to other students."
What would the reaction be? Do you think the public would be a little upset? I would hope so. Now, I know I shouldn't compare animals to people - but I just had to this one time. This scenario is getting played out, over and over again in our nation's shelters when even a whiff of a ringworm spore floats by. It's ringworm. IT'S A FUNGUS!
Like Athlete's Foot. Have you ever heard of anybody being "euthanized" for athlete's foot? It's ludicrous. And yet shelter directors are STILL insisting that it is the kiss of death. Oh but sorry, in an effort to sound clinical - most shelters will use the term "depopulate" instead of "euthanize" when they talk about killing animals with ringworm. They can say the word so quickly and with such authority - "depopulate" - that it takes a moment for the true horror of the reality to set in. Have you ever heard of a nursing home that "depopulates" it's facility when it has an infectious disease?
There is only one reason why ringworm is the kiss of death in shelters. Because the shelters have let it become so. We need to let go of the stigma. Let's shout it from the rooftops. It's Ringworm. "I Have Ringworm. You Have Ringworm. We All Have Ringworm." ITS A FUNGUS!! We eat them in gravy. They live in our bathtubs and on our lawns. THE WORLD IS NOT COMING TO AN END!!
Sorry, but I had to do that - because it makes me crazy when shelters kill otherwise totally healthy animals for ringworm. Is it a pain in the butt? Yes. Does it cost time and money to treat? Yes. Is it contagious to other animals and humans? Yes. But is it highly treatable? Of course. It's a FUNGUS.
Fungi are best treated with bleach, heat, sunlight and dry air. (Sounds like my mother's cleaning regiment). Cluttered shelters with poor airflow and damp corners are going to be harder to clean. Maybe it's time to ask for donations to solve those problems, if that is the case in your shelter. Maybe it's time to have better cleaning protocols and staff training to prevent a ringworm outbreak in the first place.
I have had horses for 25 years. I am no stranger to ringworm. Horses get ringworm. Cows get ringworm. I've had ringworm. But you treat it and you get on with your life. I have never, ever, ever heard of a horse being "euthanized" for ringworm.
The stigma attached to ringworm will only stop when the shelters stop it. They need to educate the public, talk about it in the media, rally their volunteers and foster homes to help when there is an outbreak and then sit back and take a deep breath. But hiding behind closed doors and whispering is perpetuating the problem and increasing the stigma.
We have some of the nation's leading researchers on ringworm right here in Wisconsin. We have dairy farmers who deal with ringworm day in and day out. Do you think they "depopulate" their farms? I think not. (One farming article I read said - "just put some athlete's foot cream on the lesions")
When I was in about 3rd grade - I remember an outbreak of head lice in my school. I came home with the letter from the school nurse, my Mom picked around at my scalp and sure enough - there were those little critters having a good ole' time. She marched off to the drugstore for the shampoo, lathered me up according to the directions and that was that. While some mothers were wringing their hands in despair, wondering how this could happen in our neighborhood, and what was the school going to do about it - the practical mothers had already moved on and I was back playing at the playground. And as far as I can tell, I have no emotional scars from the big HEAD LICE scare of 1969.
Here are some recent shelter veterinary notes on the prevention and treatment of ringworm.
http://www.sheltermedicine.com/portal/is_ringworm.shtml#top3ng
Dane County Humane Society, part of a Maddie's Fund project, has a ringworm treatment program highlighted on their website. So it can be done - and is being done, in Wisconsin.
The No Kill Advocacy Center has published a Lifesaving Matrix which clearly lists ringworm as a treatable condition.
So before you donate to a shelter - why don't you ask? "Do you treat for ringworm? Dogs? Cats? (Many shelters will treat dogs but not cats - since they make the argument that there are more available cats than dogs and that it is harder to treat a cat.) If you "euthanize" for ringworm, how are you implementing procedures NOW so that you don't have to in the future?" Ask the tough questions. It's your money and you have a right to know.
This blog was dedicated to an eight month old puppy who was killed for a minor ringworm infection at a local shelter. May he not have died in vain.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Head on down to your local shelter (Tell them I sent you)
I re-read my last few posts and decided I must sound like the shelter witch. That's witch. With a "w". And I really like shelters. Really! I've spent the last 3 years volunteering at a local shelter one or two afternoons a week. I am amazed at the speed at which dogs and cats are adopted. If I remember correctly from a recent seminar, the average length of stay for a dog at Wisconsin Humane Society is five days. I don't know the statistics for other shelters because transparency is lacking at best. I was also amazed at the "traffic" the shelter got especially on Friday afternoons in the spring and fall.
People in America are getting the "Adopt, don't shop" message. They WANT to adopt. They are often waiting for the shelter to open for viewing. Why would people choose a shelter (over a rescue) to adopt from? Here's my top five reasons;
1) They can see a variety and good selection of animals in a short amount of time.
2) It is more convenient. They don't have to make an appointment and the viewing hours are usually good.
3) They don't have to jump through the hoops that they would at a rescue (home visits, pre-approved applications, etc.)
4) They have donated to the shelter in the past and feel that it is part of the community.
5) They feel comfortable adopting from a brick and mortar facility. If something doesn't work out they have a reasonable chance to get satisfactory help and/or recourse from the shelter.
I truly believe that a pet's best chance for a quick, successful adoption in Wisconsin is at a shelter. There are some good breed rescues who are also doing an awesome job. But there are also a lot of disreputable Mom and Pop type rescues popping up on every street corner and in every neighborhood. There are also the endless "Dogs in Danger" types of postings on the Internet where you can "save" a dog from a southern shelter. (more on the pitfalls of this in a future post)
Some of our Wisconsin shelters have problems, no doubt. A lot of them have not changed with the times. They are not ready for the next generation of sheltering that is upon us. But I want to see our shelters work. Really!
They are the safety net for our animals. And that's why I am using this blog as an educational tool for the volunteers, the donors, the public, and the staff. Wisconsin has the resources and the ability to lead the way in the nation in animal welfare. Let's do it!
People in America are getting the "Adopt, don't shop" message. They WANT to adopt. They are often waiting for the shelter to open for viewing. Why would people choose a shelter (over a rescue) to adopt from? Here's my top five reasons;
1) They can see a variety and good selection of animals in a short amount of time.
2) It is more convenient. They don't have to make an appointment and the viewing hours are usually good.
3) They don't have to jump through the hoops that they would at a rescue (home visits, pre-approved applications, etc.)
4) They have donated to the shelter in the past and feel that it is part of the community.
5) They feel comfortable adopting from a brick and mortar facility. If something doesn't work out they have a reasonable chance to get satisfactory help and/or recourse from the shelter.
I truly believe that a pet's best chance for a quick, successful adoption in Wisconsin is at a shelter. There are some good breed rescues who are also doing an awesome job. But there are also a lot of disreputable Mom and Pop type rescues popping up on every street corner and in every neighborhood. There are also the endless "Dogs in Danger" types of postings on the Internet where you can "save" a dog from a southern shelter. (more on the pitfalls of this in a future post)
Some of our Wisconsin shelters have problems, no doubt. A lot of them have not changed with the times. They are not ready for the next generation of sheltering that is upon us. But I want to see our shelters work. Really!
They are the safety net for our animals. And that's why I am using this blog as an educational tool for the volunteers, the donors, the public, and the staff. Wisconsin has the resources and the ability to lead the way in the nation in animal welfare. Let's do it!
Monday, June 28, 2010
Dog Tracker 101
I promised you that I would start talking about shelter intake numbers and how we can effectively reduce shelter deaths by reducing intake. For so many years, animal welfare has been working on the outgoing numbers - increasing adoptions - that we've ignored the fact that reducing intake is also a major component to reducing shelter deaths. If you don't bring them in - you can't kill them!
There are many ways this can be done. Some obvious, some not so obvious. I can't believe the number of people I talk to that think shelter intake is a fixed number which cannot be changed. They think we can't make an impact on how many animals are coming into shelters and animal control agencies in the first place. What? Of course we can.
Adoptions are skyrocketing and that's a great thing. Now, it's time to find a new place to focus. That's why I'm so interested in new groups who are thinking of creative ideas to reduce shelter intake. We don't need any more rescues in Wisconsin. We have plenty - probably too many (but that's another blog).
So, today I'd like to explain the impact that a new group "Lost Dogs of Wisconsin" is having on our State. A shelter director recently accused me of having a passion for finding lost dogs like it was some sort of freakish obsession or weird hobby. I explained that "No - I don't have a passion for finding lost dogs, I have a passion for reducing shelter deaths in America." Keeping lost dogs out of the shelter system is a very effective way to reduce shelter deaths. Lost dogs that end up in shelters often fall through the cracks and never make it back to their owners.
This "lost and found service" is called Missing Animal Response and it should be a part of every progressive animal shelter's services. Unfortunately, it is not, - in any sort of effective or coordinated fashion in our state. The incredible short-sightedness of this shelter director's comments hit me like a ton of bricks. Missing animal response when done properly reduces shelter deaths, educates the public, increases goodwill, increases donations and strengthens the shelter's credibility and presence in the community.
Because these services are lacking in Wisconsin a new group Lost Dogs of Wisconsin - a non-profit, all volunteer group dedicated to reuniting dogs with owners was formed. In a very short time, the group has grown to a network of over 2000 Facebook Fans and dedicated members from around the state who will assist owners in the search for their dog. Finding the dog quickly, keeps them out of shelters, saves taxpayers' money in animal control services, reduces community problems with "free-roaming" dogs, reduces the risk of traffic accidents with loose dogs and keeps kennel space free for needier animals.
The most comprehensive article ever written on Missing Animal Response was written by Kat Albrecht who coined the phrase "Think Lost, Not Stray" and is definitely worth the read.
There are many more great ideas and new groups that are popping up out there that are helping reduce shelter intake and I will have a "passion" for those also. I will be featuring their virtues in upcoming blogs as well as talking about how a major paradigm shift is needed to remove barriers and return "strays" to owners.
Successful shelters of the future will have Missing Animal Response services (lost and found departments) that work effectively and efficiently to help pets get back home.
There are many ways this can be done. Some obvious, some not so obvious. I can't believe the number of people I talk to that think shelter intake is a fixed number which cannot be changed. They think we can't make an impact on how many animals are coming into shelters and animal control agencies in the first place. What? Of course we can.
Adoptions are skyrocketing and that's a great thing. Now, it's time to find a new place to focus. That's why I'm so interested in new groups who are thinking of creative ideas to reduce shelter intake. We don't need any more rescues in Wisconsin. We have plenty - probably too many (but that's another blog).
So, today I'd like to explain the impact that a new group "Lost Dogs of Wisconsin" is having on our State. A shelter director recently accused me of having a passion for finding lost dogs like it was some sort of freakish obsession or weird hobby. I explained that "No - I don't have a passion for finding lost dogs, I have a passion for reducing shelter deaths in America." Keeping lost dogs out of the shelter system is a very effective way to reduce shelter deaths. Lost dogs that end up in shelters often fall through the cracks and never make it back to their owners.
This "lost and found service" is called Missing Animal Response and it should be a part of every progressive animal shelter's services. Unfortunately, it is not, - in any sort of effective or coordinated fashion in our state. The incredible short-sightedness of this shelter director's comments hit me like a ton of bricks. Missing animal response when done properly reduces shelter deaths, educates the public, increases goodwill, increases donations and strengthens the shelter's credibility and presence in the community.
Because these services are lacking in Wisconsin a new group Lost Dogs of Wisconsin - a non-profit, all volunteer group dedicated to reuniting dogs with owners was formed. In a very short time, the group has grown to a network of over 2000 Facebook Fans and dedicated members from around the state who will assist owners in the search for their dog. Finding the dog quickly, keeps them out of shelters, saves taxpayers' money in animal control services, reduces community problems with "free-roaming" dogs, reduces the risk of traffic accidents with loose dogs and keeps kennel space free for needier animals.
The most comprehensive article ever written on Missing Animal Response was written by Kat Albrecht who coined the phrase "Think Lost, Not Stray" and is definitely worth the read.
There are many more great ideas and new groups that are popping up out there that are helping reduce shelter intake and I will have a "passion" for those also. I will be featuring their virtues in upcoming blogs as well as talking about how a major paradigm shift is needed to remove barriers and return "strays" to owners.
Successful shelters of the future will have Missing Animal Response services (lost and found departments) that work effectively and efficiently to help pets get back home.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
No Kill By Any Other Name is Still No Kill
A few weeks ago I was sitting in an animal shelter waiting for a friend. I heard one of the front office staff answer the phone. I only heard one half of the conversation but I assumed that the caller was asking if the shelter was "no kill" and was trying to surrender a pet. The staff member went into a long explanation of how no kill shelters were horrible places - they were warehouses, run by animal hoarders. Obviously, this staff member has not picked up an animal welfare magazine or been to any kind of conference or staff training in the past five years. Even mainstream magazines, available in your local grocery store, such as BARK and Cat Fancy have recently run articles conceding to the fact that a No Kill Nation is not only possible, it is probable.
I am not going to go into the whole no-kill controversy here. There is plenty of reading material on the subject, email me if you would like me to steer you towards some of the more relevant articles.
I do want to talk about the the definition - which is highly misunderstood. Nowhere in the definition of no-kill does it say that dangerous dogs or untreatable medical conditions should be saved. Many shelters in Wisconsin may already be falling into the parameters of "no-kill". But the words have stirred up such controversy and negative connotations that it has not been until this past year when the Humane Society of the United States and Maddie's Fund started to openly use the term, that it is losing it's "dirty word" image. These two groups, along with the Ad Council started the Shelter Pet Project - an ambitious advertising campaign to sing the praises of shelter pets. (As a side note, I do find it amusing that the HSUS, who had not been a big supporter of no-kill in the past, saw a parade and decided to get in front of it. But hey, I'm not going to look a gift horse in the mouth. As far as I'm concerned, the more the merrier.)
To avoid the "no kill" controversy, shelters and organizations have come up with catch phrases which mean the same thing - "low kill" and "adoption guarantee" are two that come to mind. "No More Homeless Pets" is another - what a mouthful that is when you try to say it fast.
No Kill - Just say it! When you are saving all the healthy and treatable animals in your care you are a "no-kill shelter or rescue". Who doesn't want to be that? What we would like to see is "no-kill communities". So that the burden of the killing does not fall to other organizations.
Can it be done? Of course it can. Yesterday NASA moved two people into the space station - we have the intelligence to deal with this. It is being done in communities in every part of this nation. Today. Regardless of the economy, the geography, the demographics, the climate, the politics, the number of street lights in town or whatever other lame excuse gets thrown in.
One more definition: euthanasia. Euthanasia is death to end the suffering of pain. Most shelter animals that are put to death are not euthanized. They are not in pain, thus, they are killed. Using the "k" word freaks shelter staff out because they don't like to feel guilty about the job they have to do."Putting to sleep" is an even more pathetic phrase. You put children to sleep (bedtime). Are we going to say that next to take away the guilt? I'm going to put Fluffy to bed now because he doesn't have a home.
So, I'm going to take the blame away from the shelter staff who do the actual deed. They don't do the killing. The killing is done by the shelter directors and the Boards of Directors of shelters who refuse to update their policies and implement progressive animal welfare practices that are working elsewhere.
Some people believe change can happen overnight. I believe there is a lot of work to be done, most of it being a paradigm shift by the people in charge. But even small steps make huge differences. Logistics and inventory are our big ones right now. And keeping the animals out of the shelter in the first place! If they don't come in, you can't kill them!
Shelters and rescues that will be successful in the future are those that are striving to achieve no-kill status now and are proud to say so. I just checked the numbers. The No Kill Nation on Facebook has 54,165 fans; Best Friends Animal Society has 90,943; the Humane Society of the United States has 263,776; Maddie's Fund has 3562; and the Shelter Pet Project has 13,794. Sure some of those may be duplicates. Nonetheless, that's an awful lot of people that are getting the message that no-kill is not only possible but probable. Shelters that "trashtalk" no-kill on the telephone to their customers are looking pretty foolish.
I am not going to go into the whole no-kill controversy here. There is plenty of reading material on the subject, email me if you would like me to steer you towards some of the more relevant articles.
I do want to talk about the the definition - which is highly misunderstood. Nowhere in the definition of no-kill does it say that dangerous dogs or untreatable medical conditions should be saved. Many shelters in Wisconsin may already be falling into the parameters of "no-kill". But the words have stirred up such controversy and negative connotations that it has not been until this past year when the Humane Society of the United States and Maddie's Fund started to openly use the term, that it is losing it's "dirty word" image. These two groups, along with the Ad Council started the Shelter Pet Project - an ambitious advertising campaign to sing the praises of shelter pets. (As a side note, I do find it amusing that the HSUS, who had not been a big supporter of no-kill in the past, saw a parade and decided to get in front of it. But hey, I'm not going to look a gift horse in the mouth. As far as I'm concerned, the more the merrier.)
To avoid the "no kill" controversy, shelters and organizations have come up with catch phrases which mean the same thing - "low kill" and "adoption guarantee" are two that come to mind. "No More Homeless Pets" is another - what a mouthful that is when you try to say it fast.
No Kill - Just say it! When you are saving all the healthy and treatable animals in your care you are a "no-kill shelter or rescue". Who doesn't want to be that? What we would like to see is "no-kill communities". So that the burden of the killing does not fall to other organizations.
Can it be done? Of course it can. Yesterday NASA moved two people into the space station - we have the intelligence to deal with this. It is being done in communities in every part of this nation. Today. Regardless of the economy, the geography, the demographics, the climate, the politics, the number of street lights in town or whatever other lame excuse gets thrown in.
One more definition: euthanasia. Euthanasia is death to end the suffering of pain. Most shelter animals that are put to death are not euthanized. They are not in pain, thus, they are killed. Using the "k" word freaks shelter staff out because they don't like to feel guilty about the job they have to do."Putting to sleep" is an even more pathetic phrase. You put children to sleep (bedtime). Are we going to say that next to take away the guilt? I'm going to put Fluffy to bed now because he doesn't have a home.
So, I'm going to take the blame away from the shelter staff who do the actual deed. They don't do the killing. The killing is done by the shelter directors and the Boards of Directors of shelters who refuse to update their policies and implement progressive animal welfare practices that are working elsewhere.
Some people believe change can happen overnight. I believe there is a lot of work to be done, most of it being a paradigm shift by the people in charge. But even small steps make huge differences. Logistics and inventory are our big ones right now. And keeping the animals out of the shelter in the first place! If they don't come in, you can't kill them!
Shelters and rescues that will be successful in the future are those that are striving to achieve no-kill status now and are proud to say so. I just checked the numbers. The No Kill Nation on Facebook has 54,165 fans; Best Friends Animal Society has 90,943; the Humane Society of the United States has 263,776; Maddie's Fund has 3562; and the Shelter Pet Project has 13,794. Sure some of those may be duplicates. Nonetheless, that's an awful lot of people that are getting the message that no-kill is not only possible but probable. Shelters that "trashtalk" no-kill on the telephone to their customers are looking pretty foolish.
Monday, June 14, 2010
The Wind of Change is Coming - Will We Be Ready?
Recently I read an article in the Wall Street Journal about how Barnes & Noble book stores has suffered huge losses in recent months. They have been blindsided by the success of the Amazon Kindle Reader and the release of the Ipad. They had smugly thought they were immune to electronic media - that the good old brick and mortar book store was here to stay. Now, even if they do play catch up and start selling digital books - the profit margin is so much smaller that they will never be able to afford the overhead of their mega stores. Their only hope is massive restructuring and perhaps selling a much wider array of merchandise than just books. If only they had looked ahead....
I see the same thing happening with animal shelters and it breaks my heart. Because it is not just bricks and steel and mortar. It's living breathing animals that will suffer. Animal sheltering is changing by leaps and bounds and those directors with their heads in the sand are going to get blindsided by the changes that are coming. It's been in the works for years - but unfortunately the nature of animal welfare work is for everyone to be head down, butt up, full steam ahead without having the time or resources at the end of the day to think about planning for the future.
I would like to share some of these changes and challenges in upcoming blogs.
What's coming? Here's a sampler:
1) The public is getting wise to the realities of animal sheltering. The dirty little secrets are out. The power and speed of the internet has linked animal lovers across the nation who are exchanging shelter horror stories with the click of their mouse. The public will no longer accept the old methods either morally or financially. Shelters will have to step up to the plate or risk financial ruin when their donations take a nosedive.
2) Gone will be the old days of "adopt out the best and kill the rest". As we are closing in on no-kill status and more people than ever are choosing the adoption option - the numbers of highly adoptable animals is falling. Already, shelters in northen states have to pull from the south to meet their needs. So shelters of the future will have to be willing to spend more time and resources rehabilitating shy and behaviorally challenged dogs.
3) It will be acceptable to buy a dog from a reputable breeder. Dog rescuers and shelters will have to stop looking down their noses at those that "shop" rather than "adopt". They should be reaching out to good breeders now, forging relationships for the future, and working together to end the misery of commercial breeding facilities (puppy mills).
4) Shelters will have to become centers for information. They will need animal help desks, lost and found services, services for seniors, behaviorists, animal advocacy centers, and more. These services are what will generate goodwill and donations.
5) Shelters will need to focus on "intake" numbers rather than outgoing numbers. Much more on this later because this is a biggie.
6) The latest census has shown that we are becoming far more diverse as a nation. The following is Friday's USA Today article which shows that minorities are quickly becoming the majority in many parts of the nation.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/2010-06-10-census-minorities_N.htm?csp=obinsite
Animal welfare, which has typically been dominated by white, middle class women will have to learn to reach out to all ethnicities and races, income levels and family dynamics. Shelters will need diverse staff and volunteers; who are open-minded, understanding of different cultures and perhaps have at least one Spanish-speaking member on staff.
Okay, I'm going to let you chew on that for awhile. Because there's much more to come.
I see the same thing happening with animal shelters and it breaks my heart. Because it is not just bricks and steel and mortar. It's living breathing animals that will suffer. Animal sheltering is changing by leaps and bounds and those directors with their heads in the sand are going to get blindsided by the changes that are coming. It's been in the works for years - but unfortunately the nature of animal welfare work is for everyone to be head down, butt up, full steam ahead without having the time or resources at the end of the day to think about planning for the future.
I would like to share some of these changes and challenges in upcoming blogs.
What's coming? Here's a sampler:
1) The public is getting wise to the realities of animal sheltering. The dirty little secrets are out. The power and speed of the internet has linked animal lovers across the nation who are exchanging shelter horror stories with the click of their mouse. The public will no longer accept the old methods either morally or financially. Shelters will have to step up to the plate or risk financial ruin when their donations take a nosedive.
2) Gone will be the old days of "adopt out the best and kill the rest". As we are closing in on no-kill status and more people than ever are choosing the adoption option - the numbers of highly adoptable animals is falling. Already, shelters in northen states have to pull from the south to meet their needs. So shelters of the future will have to be willing to spend more time and resources rehabilitating shy and behaviorally challenged dogs.
3) It will be acceptable to buy a dog from a reputable breeder. Dog rescuers and shelters will have to stop looking down their noses at those that "shop" rather than "adopt". They should be reaching out to good breeders now, forging relationships for the future, and working together to end the misery of commercial breeding facilities (puppy mills).
4) Shelters will have to become centers for information. They will need animal help desks, lost and found services, services for seniors, behaviorists, animal advocacy centers, and more. These services are what will generate goodwill and donations.
5) Shelters will need to focus on "intake" numbers rather than outgoing numbers. Much more on this later because this is a biggie.
6) The latest census has shown that we are becoming far more diverse as a nation. The following is Friday's USA Today article which shows that minorities are quickly becoming the majority in many parts of the nation.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/2010-06-10-census-minorities_N.htm?csp=obinsite
Animal welfare, which has typically been dominated by white, middle class women will have to learn to reach out to all ethnicities and races, income levels and family dynamics. Shelters will need diverse staff and volunteers; who are open-minded, understanding of different cultures and perhaps have at least one Spanish-speaking member on staff.
Okay, I'm going to let you chew on that for awhile. Because there's much more to come.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Would Someone At Countryside Humane Society Please Stand Up?
Generally, in animal welfare we get to pick on the bad guys. It's kind of like the wild west - the good guys against the bad guys. We are waging war against the puppy millers, the dog fighters, the people who are horrendously cruel to animals. That's a pretty easy role to take. Last week though, one of those strange things happened in Wisconsin that makes me squirm in my seat - I have to pick on what should be the good guys - a humane society.
Humane societies have all kinds of different policies and procedures - contrary to popular belief, there is NOT a governing body. They do not receive funding or guidance in any way from the Humane Society of the United States or any other national organization. They are free to do as they choose as long as they don't break the law. They make mistakes and get off track, but in general - their mission is to save animals' lives and promote adoptions - and they do a good job of it. But recently one local humane society made a major mistake that may cost animals their lives and they need to be held accountable for it.
I'm going to start by saying - I don't know both sides of this story. I have no inside scoop. I am only commenting on the news stories that I have been following in the paper and with the major local news outlets. So far, the facts have not been disputed.
Countryside Humane Society in Racine, Wisconsin mistakenly gave approximately 600 animals expired rabies vaccines starting back in December 2009. It was brought to the attention of the executive director by a staff member who has since been fired.
Now those 600 animals and their owners have to be located, notified and brought back in to be re-vaccinated. The expired vaccines were probably still good, that's not the point. Because it's a state law to have a current rabies vaccine this must be done. So, now these animals run the health risks of being over vaccinated and/or getting the side effects that go along with a rabies vaccine to begin with.
Plus, this is a shameful use of donors' money. People trustingly donate to humane societies assuming that it is being used wisely to help animals. What a waste of their money. All because of an oversight, more supplies and manpower is needed to rectify the problem. This is money that should be saving lives, spaying and neutering animals, especially during this very busy time of year - kitten season. When the staff should be busy doing their life saving mission - they will be distracted by having to do all of this re-vaccination legwork.
Who is responsible? Head right to the top. Management and the board of directors. People that sit on the boards of animal shelters seem to know very little about what goes on behind closed doors - yet that is their job. They are supposed to be asking the tough questions, making sure that the management is leading the organization in its mission. It's not just to put a warm, fuzzy feeling in their heart and a feather in their cap and on their resume.
So, how can this be fixed? Somebody needs to speak out. Somebody should be standing up and saying - "Here is the money that has been wasted. Out of my own pocket." That is the only way there will be some trust built back in the community. In the meantime, don't be surprised if the donors shut their wallets and the animals of southeastern Wisconsin will suffer because of it.
Humane societies have all kinds of different policies and procedures - contrary to popular belief, there is NOT a governing body. They do not receive funding or guidance in any way from the Humane Society of the United States or any other national organization. They are free to do as they choose as long as they don't break the law. They make mistakes and get off track, but in general - their mission is to save animals' lives and promote adoptions - and they do a good job of it. But recently one local humane society made a major mistake that may cost animals their lives and they need to be held accountable for it.
I'm going to start by saying - I don't know both sides of this story. I have no inside scoop. I am only commenting on the news stories that I have been following in the paper and with the major local news outlets. So far, the facts have not been disputed.
Countryside Humane Society in Racine, Wisconsin mistakenly gave approximately 600 animals expired rabies vaccines starting back in December 2009. It was brought to the attention of the executive director by a staff member who has since been fired.
Now those 600 animals and their owners have to be located, notified and brought back in to be re-vaccinated. The expired vaccines were probably still good, that's not the point. Because it's a state law to have a current rabies vaccine this must be done. So, now these animals run the health risks of being over vaccinated and/or getting the side effects that go along with a rabies vaccine to begin with.
Plus, this is a shameful use of donors' money. People trustingly donate to humane societies assuming that it is being used wisely to help animals. What a waste of their money. All because of an oversight, more supplies and manpower is needed to rectify the problem. This is money that should be saving lives, spaying and neutering animals, especially during this very busy time of year - kitten season. When the staff should be busy doing their life saving mission - they will be distracted by having to do all of this re-vaccination legwork.
Who is responsible? Head right to the top. Management and the board of directors. People that sit on the boards of animal shelters seem to know very little about what goes on behind closed doors - yet that is their job. They are supposed to be asking the tough questions, making sure that the management is leading the organization in its mission. It's not just to put a warm, fuzzy feeling in their heart and a feather in their cap and on their resume.
So, how can this be fixed? Somebody needs to speak out. Somebody should be standing up and saying - "Here is the money that has been wasted. Out of my own pocket." That is the only way there will be some trust built back in the community. In the meantime, don't be surprised if the donors shut their wallets and the animals of southeastern Wisconsin will suffer because of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)